If energy needs to be saved, there are good ways
to do it.
Government product regulation is not one of them

Thursday, October 4, 2012

The Edison Obama Light Bulb...

Given the US election campaign kicking off in earnest with the first TV debate last night, there have of course been plenty of satirical images around on the light bulb issue, which (unfortunately) is a clearly split partisan issue:
While I know of several against the ban on "right wing" freedom of choice grounds, there are also those against on environmental grounds, readers of the blog who Í know would otherwise have a "left wing" political orientation.

Still, I am sure the latter won't mind a little fun with some politically oriented images against the ban ;-)
The image sources are on the images.

Explaining the above for those unfamiliar with the context, President Obama has at various times praised the American entrepreneurial spirit, citing past examples that he nevertheless has sought to ban, or to implement and strengthen a ban on (different light bulbs) or to alter by federal regulation in various ways - and not because the products were unsafe to use...

President Obama, State of the Union Address 25 January 2011:

What we can do - what America does better than anyone - is spark the creativity and imagination of our people.
We are the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices,
the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers...

A year later, in the 2012 State of the Union address, he also said
"I will not back down from protecting our kids from mercury poison"...

How Regulations are Wrongly Justified 14 points, referenced: Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs.

Hi I love how stupid anti Obama folks are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Lighting_Energy_Policy "The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 laid out changes in lighting legislation for the United States." THAT'S RIGHT BUSH SIGNED THIS INTO LAW UNDER A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS.

Thanks Ham,That is true, but two wrongs don't make a right, including that supposed savings or other reasons don't hold up as linked at the bottom of the post.Also it was under lobbying from GE, Philips and others (the CEO of GE being an administration adviser) to get rid of unprofitable cheap bulbs, as per other posts, see tags on left

For that matter, quote from a recent article April 2016 from an online journal you may read ;-)(http://netrightdaily.com/2016/04/congress-funds-light-bulb-breakthrough-despite-banning-it/)"Because it enjoyed industry support, this softened GOP opposition to the rule.....before you shed a tear for G.E. or any of the other manufacturers, you should know that they wholeheartedly supported the rule. The Washington Examiner reported in 2013 that Sylvania, Phillips and G.E. were themselves done with the Edison’s 25 cent bulb, and wanted to sell something more profitable; the 2007 law was a convenient way to break consumer habits that preferred the cheaper, less efficient bulbs."